No Stupid Questions

EU countries try really hard to register all births with the proper documents that then lead you to get an ID or passport later on in life. Everybody is used to needing an ID, being able to show it upon request, and using it to vote as well. Most people are just fine with all of that.

The US doesn't follow this logic. For example, a person born earlier the last century in the deep south may not have received a birth certificate. The birth could have just been written into the household bible. So when you require a voter ID and to get that you need a birth certificate, you have eliminated a possible voter. And what if I added this bible practice was done predominantly in African-American communities. There will be other loopholes where people will be required to produce paperwork they can only acquire after a Kafkaesque tour through various administrations. Funny enough a lot of them affecting minority communities first and foremost.

If you want to do a proper voter ID, you need to first convince the people this isn't government overreach (good luck). And then make sure everybody has an equal chance to get this ID, e.g. by issuing missing birth certificates. The laws that generally want to introduce this do not care about equal chances. They tend to target voters who vote for the other side.

I think a lot of it comes down to classism. While it's probably unimaginable in a developed nation, it's entirely possible for underprivileged citizens in the United States not to have a government issued ID. The hurdles to get one are also disproportionately greater for those individuals.

It is largely seen as a form of voter suppression. And considering our history of weaponized poll and literacy testing, that's understandable.

Not an american, but I've seen this asked before and from what I remember a lot of it was about what counts as valid ID (as the US doesn't have national ID cards like we do in EU countries), and the potential that the ID required would purposely be something hard to get to various communities that are discriminated against, in an attempt to "rig the vote" as it were

Someone from the US probably has a better phrased explanation tho

What really gets to me is that even if, even if there were a few dozen or even a few hundred scattered votes that shouldn't count....no presidential election is decided by a such a small number of invalid votes. There's so much effort by the GOP to suggest fraud will cost them the election when its just not true. The amount of effort someone would have to go through just to get a 2nd vote is monumental, and for what 1 extra vote among 10s of thousands... And the risk of getting g caught is high and penalties are severe. Vote fraud is not worth the risk.

Well, it would disenfranchise a whole lot of people due to difficult to obtain (expensive, time consuming) on short notice. If it passed today many would not be able to vote in an upcoming election. It would specifically impact a large block of voters who tend to lean left. Oh, and we already use perfectly fine government issued IDs. This is just an extra hoop for poor people and women. In other words, not needed, voter suppression, targeted, and a poll tax.

Here's a perspective. Some years ago a nonprofit (aclu maybe?) offered a large sum of money for an example of voter fraud that would have been prevented by an ID, they never had to pay out, iirc. If IDs don't prevent voter fraud, why require the extra burden?

Short answer: The USA has no national ID.

Long answer: instead we have a patchwork of more than 50 different regional IDs (between states, territories, etc.), alongside a half-dozen ill-suited federal IDs, and numerous public and private institutional IDs (like university IDs or Costco cards).

For the most part, all of these cost money. Due to inconsistent systems and sometimes unclear requirements, the people who are most likely to be disenfranchised are also the most vulnerable. Most state IDs require proof of residence like a utility bill, which can be impossible if you are homeless or off-grid. If you are disabled, you may not qualify for a driver's license (the most common state ID). If you are trans (or a married woman), you may have paperwork with conflicting legal names.

If you are reasonably well-off, on the other hand, you can afford to pay a private company to facilitate your passport application. The US passport is basically the gold standard of national ID, but fewer than half of Americans have one. It requires a certain amount of wealth to even need one, and the expense (money, time, etc) is not trivial.

I have never not had to show my ID to vote. I'm 50 and have voted every time I had an opportunity. Where can you vote without proof that you are who you are and are at the right polling place?

It is very, very simple:

It is mean to make it harder for anyone that is non-white to vote.

We can parse it finer, but basically white people in aggregate are more likely to have the correct ID, time and ability to vote. Republicans know that this advantages them and so they work really hard to make it harder for anyone but the “right people” to vote.

Their entire platform is basically coded racism, and has been for a very long time. Like any other cult, they justify every transgression by appealing to the “greater cause,” which is not religious in their case but the great promise of elevating those in the “in” group.